Rights should apply in utero, too

Dec. 10 marks the 70th anniversary of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration proclaims the inherent dignity and equality of "all members of the human family."

It is the "most translated document in the world." Feminists, in the struggle for women's rights and other advocates for marginalized humans, including immigrants, have looked to the Declaration for support since its adoption in 1948.

In this "enlightened" age, the idea that rights are not related to how others value us is certainly not revolutionary. We acknowledge the inherent worth of all. We know that race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation, for example, should not determine our worth and certainly not our rights. Yet, the most basic right — the right to life — is predicated on whether or not some humans, particularly humans in utero, are valued by another.

It is becoming near incomprehensible today to imagine any other group of people's rights being denied because they are considered inconvenient or unwanted. Would we deny the elderly in our lives access to decent housing even though their needs may be burdensome? Would we tell our LGBTQ friends that it is acceptable to discriminate against them because some people can't see past their sexual orientation? Would we tell a woman candidate that she is less qualified to run for political office because she is a member of the "weaker sex"? To suggest that any of these scenarios is acceptable would suggest a lack of morality.

Yet, each time we uphold a woman's right to choose we reveal the belief that human rights are malleable and dependent upon someone else's opinion of value.

A recently resurfaced ad promoting Planned Parenthood shows a picture of a smiling baby girl, with captions that read, "She deserves to be loved. She deserves to be wanted. She deserves to be a choice." How has it come to be that supposedly pro-women activists or organizations would deny this baby girl the right to life if she is not wanted or loved? Throughout history women have clamored for rights separate from their husbands — rights defined by their individual self-worth — not by whether or not they were wanted by another.

If human rights, if feminism, is about equal rights, how is it that this baby girl can only have her life protected if she is desired by another person? Does this not stand at odds with the basic tenets of human rights, of feminism — which recognizes the intrinsic dignity and equality of all members of the human family?

At this moment in history, we are watching a caravan of migrants press on to the United States. While we may disagree about what should happen once these individuals reach the U.S. border, it is hard to argue with the notion that a child's future should not be determined by the circumstances of her birth.

According to the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, thousands of girls and women are fleeing Central America to escape violence, including forced prostitution. These women and girls haven't stopped fighting for their lives. Instead, they seek a better life.

And, isn't that what we want for our daughters? For them to know their own worth. To never stop fighting for their rights, regardless of whether or not others recognize their value? Yet, this is what we are doing to humans in utero. Today, cultures and nations are declaring that humans in utero are valuable only if they are wanted by another, particularly, their mother. Where is the humanity and equality in such a stand? This is not the feminism I seek — where human rights are conditional. This is not my understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rather than moving forward, since its adoption, it seems we are drifting backwards.

Kerri Kiniorski is the outreach coordinator of Feminists Choosing Life of New York.